How is Schop wrong about the idea that we have a "striving-ness" to us that when not occupied by "something" is sort of idling and cannot stand its own striving nature.. thus returning to "something" (usually de facto related to survival.. whether through "work in an industrialized economy", "hunting-gather", "subsistence farming", and all the other things we as humans must do to survive, find comfort, and entertain ourselves (lest we idle again and try to banish this emptiness feeling). That is to say, we are striving, struggling, getting "caught up" because we cannot stand existence sui existence, but only in so much as we can distract, plan, flow state, etc.

It's also not just "bored" in the sense that we mean with just "nothing to do".. It's a much more fundamental kind akin to Ecclesiastes.. — schopenhauer1

Yes. Boredom has a bad reputation, and people generally don't think of it in terms of suffering. In fact, it seems perverse to think of boredom as kind of suffering. It seems to be the privilege of the rich and the idle.

Yet anyone can have the same experience:
When lying down with an illness, what does one eventually feel? Bored.
When hungry for a while, what does one eventually feel? Bored.
When cold for a while, what does one eventually feel? Bored.
When doing work that is either far below one's ability and interest, or far above them, what does one eventually feel? Bored.

“A horrible and shocking thing
has happened in the land:
The prophets prophesy lies,
the priests rule by their own authority,
and my people love it this way."
Jer. 5:30-31

What are the barriers, if any, that prevent you from forming a political group, union, or even a strong social circle? — Xtrix

Seeing how the world works, the nature of the workings of the world, and that those cannot be changed.

I find myself constantly in a state of aporia; I sometimes feel that I'm aporia manifested in the physical plane as a person, that's how utterly bewildering the world, the universe, is to me. — Agent Smith

Is it truly aporia, or is it a case of finding oneself in a socioeconomic situation where one "far behind others"?
There is a difference between aporia, and the overwhelm that a particular person may feel upon realizing how much they in particular would need to do in order to barely measure up as an "average citizen".

This overwhelm also has the two elemetns
1. One doesn't know where to begin or where to end.
2. One is paralyzed as to what's one's next move.
but in this overwhelm, there are practical, tangible causes for the confusion and paralysis.

People actually get better, regain control and an ability to fight the system and if psychology is working, people are less miserable and more effective in life. — Tom Storm

Of course, if they can become successful capitalists (to whatever extent that is possible for them, given their socioeconomic status), then they are indeed less miserable and more effective in life. They might even "fight the system". But they are still consumers at heart.

Or the other side does it. Or maybe they even already did it.
I actually don't know whether to prepare for planting season or not.

Psychology and psychiatry take a dim view of humans.
— baker

I think that is true some of the time. They are certainly a very popular target of hate in pop culture. — Tom Storm

Said pop culture misses the point. Psychology and psychiatry work in favor of capitalism. Capitalism wants people to focus on themselves, isolated from society, to see themselves as flawed and thus needing all those products and services that capitalism so readily provides. Psychology and psychiatry do just this: they get people to focus on themselves, to lose sight of the big picture, to see themselves as the source of their problems. This way, people don't rebel against the system (they don't even see the system), but they just buy, buy, buy, consume, consume, consume. And capitalism, psychology, and psychiatry are happy, while the people are miserable.

Whatever goals we have, I’m thinking more and more there’s only one way to get there: through collective effort. That’s not to say we lose our individual identities— but that one person, isolated, simply can’t take on an entire system. — Xtrix

No, but the system has to be taken on an individual level. It's what "consumers" -- every individual person can do.

In order to bring down capitalism (more like: render it economically unviable), one would need to do things that are counterproductive to capitalism, and those things are sometimes counterintuitive and come with a cost to the "consumer". Don't buy stuff at sales and at discount prices, don't buy fast fashion, buy less, buy relatively good quality, treat your things well so that they last. Don't buy junkfood. Don't buy pseudoluxuries (like storebrand versions of luxury items, like storebrand champagne). Buy as few imported goods as possible.

Capitalism understands only profit. If nobody buys stuff that is on sale, they'll stop putting it on sale. Note that when things are on sale, this means that somebody isn't getting paid properly in the process. This is usually the people who actually manufactured the items on sale. It's impossible to tell whether they'll be paid less unfairly if people buy things at the full price, but the important thing is to fight the idea of "getting something for very little or nothing".

It seems inevitable, though, that there will be suffering in the process. Many people who are involved in the production of relatively cheap and relatively low-quality items will lose their jobs. The fact is that it was ethically wrong to produce and to buy such items to begin with. Everyone involved will need to pay the price for this eventually.

Battlefield managers can not wait several days to get clarity, of course. But we who are far distant from the battleground should not take every report we hear as settled truth. — Bitter Crank

But we're not all that distant from the battleground. If they throw the a-bomb, I am close enough to be affected. I can forget about growing fruits and vegetables for the rest of my life. If I survive.


There are still big airplanes flying overhead, several per hour. Hungary said it won't allow transit of weaponry and soldiers over its territory. But what are those airplanes carrying? They won't say on the news.

This is why I'm fearing that he might take the world down with him. — Christoffer

The bigger picture of all this is that the world cannot go on living in the exploitative ways it has so far.
The idea of infinite economic growth is not realistic. Infinite growth is not sustainable.

This insistence on living way beyond sustainable means is what gives rise to extreme actions, such as wars.

Ukraine and Russia could have the same if Russia had just let Ukraine be to form their own nation with their own standards and values. — Christoffer

But the Ukrainians want a first-world lifestyle. This is not realistic, it's not environmentally sustainable, not even for the so-called first-world countries.

They can arrange trading deals that make it so it's just as good as if they were part of Russia, without demanding them to be part of "the new world order empire".

Russia wants the Ukraine to be neutral, not part of Russia.

Russia will also be cast off the world stage in every other regard. — Hanover

To which they have never been truly accepted to begin with.

He'll basically put a squash on Ukraine's economy by diminishing its ties with Europe. — frank

Or may make it function well, just not at the elite level at which Western countries aspire to be.
In the long run, this may actually be better, and ecologically more sustainable.

It is a simple question, really, and no-one has answered it: who was responsible to prevent Russia invading Ukraine? The United Nations? Was Putin unstoppable? It has to be one or the other, if you have a third alternative I would like to hear it. — FreeEmotion

The Ukraine.

Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that it might actually be good for a country to ask Russia to take it under its wing? Or at least to see it as a matter of their own interest to be on friendly terms with Russia?

And not in the least in the sense of merely appeasing a bully. Just like a person may at some point realize that they don't have the means to sustain their lavish lifestyle anymore and that they need to lower their consumption of luxuries, so a country may realize that for its own survival, it may need a simpler economy, focused on self-sufficiency.

What is it about my question that no-one wants to answer it? It seemed quite simple. What is the advantage in exculpating the US and Europe? You've answered a question about your objectives with a history lesson.

I don't deny anything you've said is possibly true. It's also possibly true that the US had a even greater role then you suggest. That theory isn't overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, so it remains possible. They've done it loads of times before, so it remains plausible also.

So why do seek to pour cold water on the theory every time it's mentioned? I've been quite clear on my objective. I've been quite clear why, in the face of sketchy evidence, I'm erring on the side of assuming ill intent on the part of those governments. I've asked you four times now why you're so keen on excusing them of that intent, but you keep dodging the question. — Isaac

I think this also has to do with what I call "modern city people". I live in a rural area that is rapidly undergoing suburbanization and gentrification. People from the city are moving here, building their homes (destroying first-grade arable land and forests!). The older culture of mostly farmers is rapidly disappearing, along with its dialect. The new people show a remarkable lack of consideration for others. Earlier on, everyone would greet everyone when meeting in the street. Now it's like in the city, it's normal to walk around with a grim face, silently. Even neighbors don't greet.

An example from traffic: There are many hills here, the roads are old and narrow, with many sharp curves, steep slopes. In many places the road is too narrow for two cars to meet, but there are occasional niches built where one car can move to the side for the other to pass. To the "old settlers", it's normal to take this into consideration and to drive in such a way as the narrow roads permit, so that everyone is safe. But not the new ones. They just drive, like they own the road. They have no qualms about endangering others.

These modern people apparently have a very limited understanding of what it means to live together with others, as neighbors. I see this reflected also in the way Russia's intentions have been interpreted by so many. This modern idea of "I'm going to live as I please, others be damned, and if they don't like it, that's their problem".

That's just not the way to live with other people, with neighbors. But these modern people just don't understand this.

Yes yes, but isn't what is in their free and independent minds important? Suppose what they had in their heads was the brotherhood of man. That would be nice. It follows that anything else would not be nice. — FreeEmotion

It only takes one freeloader, one person who doesn't want this brotherhood of men, and the whole project collapses.

Well, some people are against war and killing innocent people. — ssu

They're not against it as long as they are the ones doing the killing.

Of course the world should be 'one family'. The question is who should be the 'head' of that family. Not everyone wants to see America (or Wall Street) in that role.

This is why I'm saying that the best solution would be for each continent to be free and independent. — Apollodorus

But this independence starts in one's mind. Meaning, cease giving so much of one's precious time to foreign sources for mental engagement. Such as, if you're not American, stop watching US films, US sitcoms, US reality shows etc. And if one watches the US programmes because those in one's native language aren't interesting enough, then it would be prudent to stop watching tv for the purpose of entertainment altogether.

(US films, sitcoms, reality shows, and other tv programmes are de facto examples of US imperialism: they are watched all over the world.)


Meaning, ordinary people could do a lot for the wellbeing of their own culture and country, and it is primarily by saying no to foreign influences.

I don't see how the world is "at peace" when there are wars of various degrees of intensity in Syria, Ethiopia, Yemen, etc. and when people are suppressed, persecuted, and killed in many countries around the world. — Apollodorus

And in the first world as well.

The only difference between dying slowly from overwork exhaustion and poverty (as is the fate of more and more people in first world countries) and dying in a bomb explosion in a war is how quickly it happens.

Simple answer: Because it's constantly changing it's borders! It has problems to know just where it's country ends. Just look at Ukraine now and what Putin is saying about the country. — ssu

*sigh*

Russia's defense of it's country has been for others Russia's invasions and imperialism. Is that hard to understand?

That's what I'm talking about. So many people simply refuse to look at the matter from Russia's perspective. In fact, they refuse to acknowledge that there are perspectives at all. To them, there is just their own perspective, which is The Truth, and all else is wrong.

If one is going to think in such ways, then why bother with philosophy?

In the other hand, we have a population dying in their houses because Putin does not recognize the Ukranian sovereignity. — javi2541997

Democarcy comes with a cost. Everyone is responsible. Nobody is innocent.

From the NY Times

"The sanctions “are severe enough to dismantle Russia’s economy and financial system, something we have never seen in history,” Carl B. Weinberg, chief economist at High Frequency Economics, wrote this week. — frank

And the NY Times etc. think that the Russian government hasn't taken this into consideration?

Does nobody play chess? In chess, in order to win, one has to be willing to sacrifice all figures except one.

The real problem is that Russia has always had this border issue: there aren't any obvious geographical borders, but flatland from Europe to Asia. And hence they've always been insisting on having more territory for defense and see springboards everywhere where they are threatened. And of course, the threat of the enemy serve authoritarian regimes well. — ssu

*sigh*

Why is the notion of "protecing your own country" so hard to understand when it is applied to Russia?

Yes yes but what for? What is the end game here? What are the goals of the great nations of the world right now, isn't it more power and domination over the others, in some sort of an international squid game? Is that what the human race was meant for? — FreeEmotion

What else?

Human existence is a mixed bag, and living on a planet where resources are scarce and relatively hard to obtain, this mixed bag is all it can be.

What is amazing is how philosophically unprepared most people seem to be for this. They are operating on the conviction that life on earth not only should be heaven, but that it _can_ be heaven. And that the only reason why it isn't is because some people are just evil.

They keep having those WW II memorials, saying "so that things like that would never happen again", but they never actually analyze why those things happened in the first place. And more, they fail to understand that merely remembering them is _not_ going to prevent them from happening again.

Of course, bringing up heavy existential topics in the abstract at a time like this will by many be judged as nothing other than perverse ... but it's the same in peace times, when nobody wants to think about such things because they're enjoying themselves too much.

So it's never the right time to think about heavy existential topics, while time marches on.

"There is nothing to say about Putin’s attempt to offer legal justification for his aggression. Its merit is zero.

Of course, it is true that the U.S. and its allies violate international law without a blink of an eye, but that provides no extenuation for Putin’s crimes." — Baden

Of course. But why should Russia be a ninny?

Psychology and psychiatry take a dim view of humans.

The more we can embody this ‘stillness’, the more we realise that there is nothing we need to be striving-for in any moment in time - only allowing for a free flow of possible energy. — Possibility

Bhava tanha.

All instances of suffering are a result of ignorance, isolation and exclusion. Karma refers to the quality of our interconnection with the world - it isn’t bound by ethics or this ‘round of rebirth’. The idea of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ karma is a Western notion.

The suicide bomber intends to put an end to his limited awareness of suffering by removing that awareness, along with certain other aspects of the world, by active exclusion. It is a destructive, reductionist intending that unintentionally increases suffering in the world beyond the bomber’s awareness.

The ascetic is bound by an isolated focus on their ‘individual’ round of rebirth, intending to minimise any connection they appear to have with suffering in the world. Any creative intending or karma here is isolated, and cannot extend beyond the individual, isolated from the world.

The sage recognises an underlying universal flow towards interconnection, and creatively intends to minimise suffering by maximising awareness, connection and collaboration. This is karma at work - it is not bound to rebirth, but rather highlights its limitations and extends beyond, and therefore beyond suffering. — Possibility

This is New Age stuff. I'm not touching that with a ten-foot pole.

Fuck all the established agendas and trying to make life's problem a personal problem, mam. — schopenhauer1

It's how capitalism works: Get the people to focus on their private lives, and get them to believe that every failure, every problem in their lives is their own fault. This way, they will be avid consumers, they will have little insight into their own needs, and they will have little regard for others (other people, other beings, the planet). While those higher up make a lot of money and the planet turns into hell.

It seems self-evident, one just needs to connect the dots.

Other than that, William Styron recovered that way, for example.

You and schopenhauer1 are really pitiful. You 1. resent anyone who isn't as miserable as you are. You can't even imagine there are people satisfied with their lives.

You two are broken and you 2. want, 3. demand, that we all be as broken as you are. — T Clark

You and ShowpanhourI 4. called me a liar. Fekyez both. — T Clark

Substantiate your accusations. Copy paste evidence from out post for all four items.

For me the question isn't really why do people get it, it's why do some people recover. — Tom Storm

1. Because they get bored of the depression.

2. Because the treatments for depression they've tried are worse than the depression itself.

Contemplating such topics brings madness and vexation.

That seems unlikely to me because Wittgenstein’s focus was on meaning as sense , and sense is a form
of feeling. He would have had to have an extraordinarily nuanced understanding of the relation between affectivity and conceptualization, which is precisely what autistics
lack.

His social difficulties may in fact have been due to too much emotional sensitivity. — Joshs

How can that be, "to too much emotional sensitivity"?

It seems likely that his "social difficulties" came from him taking his work seriously. Most people, including professional philosophers, turn into ordinary people once they punch out for the day. It even seems that people make a concerted effort not to allow their work to "get to them", whatever that work might be. Few are those who take the implications of their research seriously and apply them in their daily lives.

At college, one thing that always struck me as strange about students who majored in philosophy is how it left no trace on them. They kept making the same errors of reasoning as ordinary people, they were as superficial in their analysis of life problems. From what I've seen, academic philosophers aren't that different either.

I had a linguistics professors who ridiculed her colleague. I forgot the details by now, but the point was that this colleague actually applied the findings from her field of research in daily communication with people, and that apparently made her strange and hard to talk to.

Play it by ear — Joshs

Millennia of philosophy down the drain!

You and schopenhauer1 are really pitiful. You resent anyone who isn't as miserable as you are. You can't even imagine there are people satisfied with their lives.

You two are broken and you want, demand, that we all be as broken as you are. — T Clark

So people who are satisfied with their lives say such things to others as you do here to us?
Interesting this, this "satisfaction with life" ...

This additional dimensionality to Schopenhauer’s approach comes from recognising a qualitative relativity to both reasonable and ethical descriptions of the human condition. Schopenhauer’s philosophical ideas show no awareness of qualitative variability - this is particularly evident in his colour theory. With a father who supposedly committed suicide and a mother who seemed far from accepting of his personal qualities, I would say this is understandable. — Possibility

So how come that you have this awareness of qualitative variability, while Arthur Schopenhauer didn't have it?

Were you born with it?
Or did you learn it?

Our thread troll, informing us of the official Russian view — ssu

The West has indeed shown a remarkable commitment to never looking at itself.

So you set up hardcore weapons along the border with your neighbor, the weapons directed at your neighbor, but you insist that your neighbor is irrational for thinking that you have the intention of using those weapons?

You have some really interesting ideas about good neighborly relations.

I think an essential step toward a real and lasting solution would be to understand that the root cause of the problem is not Russian aggression but Western imperialism. — Apollodorus

I agree. But it seems the West will rather destroy Russia than admit to this.

Instructions for use: Attach said meaningless cliche to enemy of choice — Baden

Exactly what the West is doing.

Hagglund’s argument goes deeper than simply critiquing the idea of heaven. He uses a Derridean deconstructive approach to show that any value that is assumed to be beyond cultural contingency, such as universal notions of the good , the moral , the just or the generous , are incoherent. It is not just that we should prefer finitude over the eternal, the unconditional or the universal, but that all such assumptions fall prey to their own deconstruction. All valuation is contingent and relative. This is just as true of our imagining of a timeless deity, value structure, notion of the good or the true as it is of scientific and aesthetic endeavor. — Joshs

And so the alternative he suggests is ...?

I guess the modern approach to mental health is get used to it! or, roughly, shut up or put up! — Agent Smith

It seems this has always been the main approach most people used, and used a lot.
Remember, for the greater part of human history, human life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". And yet people somehow made it through it. Given the rich art history they've left behind, it seems they managed somehow. Perhaps they even coped better than we do, perhaps because their expectations about life were lower than ours.

The issue is that post-Enlightenment culture has lost sight of there being any way out of it, but that is due to its own philosophical shortcomings. — Wayfarer

Or it's the case that post-Enlightenment culture has too high expectations from life, so high they are bound to be disappointed, thus guaranteeing an additional misery.